2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

Property division concluded on April 25, 2008 between the defendant and the non-party Kim ○ shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000,000. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won and its amount at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from the day after the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

A. On June 3, 2002, the defendant reported a marriage with Kim○-○ on June 3, 2002.

B. On July 1, 2008, between April 16, 2008 and April 29, 2008, an individual entrepreneur investigation (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”) was conducted with respect to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ operated by Kim○, and on July 1, 2008, an individual entrepreneur investigation was conducted with respect to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ operated by Kim○, and the value-added tax and global income tax were imposed on Kim○○ on ○○○ on July 1, 2008.

C. On April 25, 2008, the Defendant had a divorce with Kim○-○ on April 25, 2008, and thereafter, on April 28, 2008, on the real estate stated in the separate sheet, which is the only real estate of Kim○-○, for division of property, filed a registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant registration of transfer of ownership”).

D. Upon the completion of the instant ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant, the ○○ Tax Office demanded the Defendant to make a disguised divorce in order to avoid tax payment obligations and to clarify whether the instant registration of ownership transfer was made, and investigated as to whether it constitutes a fraudulent act based on the supporting documents submitted by the Defendant.

E. After completion of the investigation under the above paragraph (d), ○○○○ employee, who belongs to the ○○ Tax Office, prepared a review protocol stating that “The transfer of ownership of this case and the registration of transfer of ownership of this case, which was made before April 29, 2008, on the date of completion of the investigation of this case, shall be deemed to have been made for the purpose of evading liability to pay value-added tax, etc.” (hereinafter “the review protocol of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 evidence, Eul 4-1 and 2-2 evidence, fact inquiry results of this court's ○○ Tax Office on December 19, 2013, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

The plaintiff asserts that the transfer registration of ownership in this case made in the name of the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant asserts that the transfer registration of ownership in this case does not constitute a fraudulent act, but even if so, the lawsuit in this case brought one year after the date on which the plaintiff knew that the transfer registration of ownership in this case constitutes a fraudulent act is illegal as the exclusion period expires.

However, according to Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be instituted within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of revocation and within five years from the date when the obligee became aware of the cause of revocation, and the above period shall be the exclusion period. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the instant registration of ownership transfer was completed at around August 2008 by the employee Lee ○○, a staff member of ○○ Tax Office, around August 2008, and the fact that it constitutes a fraudulent act. Thus, the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act, which was filed on April 11, 201 after more than one year elapsed, is unlawful as the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act of this case,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is decided as per Disposition.